I'm getting married in two weeks. I've never had any "persecution" for being a member, until now. All of my extended family are refusing to come because they can't enter the temple. And it's not even like they're sad about it - they just don't seem to care. My grandma originally said she'd be thrilled to come, but she wrote me an email last night saying that she'd changed her mind because she can't see the ceremony.
I'm very hurt. I thought I was close with my extended family, but their actions speak otherwise. I tried posting my feelings to a wedding community I'm a part of, and everyone pretty much said "serves you right, I don't blame them," which just made me feel worse.
LOL. That's funny. It's like someone inviting you to their house party but making you sit out on their front lawn until the party is over. And she has no idea why her famiy is offended?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
I'm not sure why more LDS couples don't do this. Have a civil wedding, then get sealed later. Everyone wins.
That places temple marriage in a secondary position which is contrary to what the Church is all about. However, what my daughter is doing this week is getting sealed in morning and walking down the isle (no bishop, no preacher, but repleat with all the attendants) later in the afternoon after the luncheon to exchange rings.
I'm not sure why more LDS couples don't do this. Have a civil wedding, then get sealed later. Everyone wins.
That places temple marriage in a secondary position which is contrary to what the Church is all about. However, what my daughter is doing this week is getting sealed in morning and walking down the isle (no bishop, no preacher, but repleat with all the attendants) later in the afternoon after the luncheon to exchange rings.
In other words, a totally meaningless ceremony simply to appease her conscious.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Actually, it appeases the various temple ineligible members of the family on both sides. I don't think such appeasement is necessary and in fact serves to cover the need to give incentive for these people to become eligible. But I don't plan the weddings in my family, the women do. I have taught the correct principle and they are governing themselves.
bcspace wrote: That places temple marriage in a secondary position which is contrary to what the Church is all about. However, what my daughter is doing this week is getting sealed in morning and walking down the isle (no bishop, no preacher, but repleat with all the attendants) later in the afternoon after the luncheon to exchange rings.
In other words, a totally meaningless ceremony simply to appease her conscious.
And how is that different than every other wedding ceremony? ;)
harmony wrote:In other words, a totally meaningless ceremony simply to appease her conscious.
And how is that different than every other wedding ceremony? ;)
I wouldn't know. I was married in the temple, without my parents or any other member of my family. Single stupidiest thing I've ever done, and I've a long list of stupid things.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.